Citation Nr: 0832092
Decision Date: 09/19/08 Archive Date: 09/30/08
DOCKET NO. 05-18 927 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville,
Tennessee
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection for pain and numbness
of the right hand.
2. Entitlement to service connection for pain and numbness
of the left hand.
3. Entitlement to service connection for hyperlipidemia.
4. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing
loss.
5. Entitlement to service connection for athlete's foot.
6. Entitlement to service connection for sinusitis.
7. Entitlement to service connection for a right upper thigh
contusion.
8. Entitlement to service connection for an anal fissure.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: The American Legion
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
B.R. Mullins, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran had active service from January 1979 to July 1983
and from September 1986 to March 2002.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) on appeal from a February 2003 rating decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (RO) in
Nashville, Tennessee, denying the veteran's claims of service
connection.
The issues of service connection for pain and numbness of the
right hand and of the left hand are addressed in the REMAND
portion of the decision below and are REMANDED to the RO via
the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC.
FINDING OF FACT
VA received a written letter from the veteran on August 15,
2006, indicating that the veteran wanted to withdraw his
appeal seeking entitlement to service connection for
hyperlipidemia, bilateral hearing loss, athlete's foot,
sinusitis, a right upper thigh contusion, and an anal
fissure. The Board received such request prior to the
promulgation of a decision.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for withdrawal by the veteran of a Substantive
Appeal pertinent to the issue of entitlement to service
connection for hyperlipidemia, bilateral hearing loss,
athlete's foot, sinusitis, a right upper thigh contusion, and
an anal fissure have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(b)(2),
(d)(5) (West 2002 & Supp. 2008); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204
(2007).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The veteran perfected an appeal from a February 2003 rating
decision that, in pertinent part, denied service connection
for hyperlipidemia, bilateral hearing loss, athlete's foot,
sinusitis, a right upper thigh contusion, and an anal
fissure. In August 2006, VA received a written letter from
the veteran indicating that he desired to withdraw his
appeals as to the above listed issues of entitlement to
service connection. The veteran emphasized that he wished to
only proceed with an appeal as to the issues of service
connection for pain and numbness in his right hand and his
left hand. An appeal may be withdrawn in writing at any time
before a decision is rendered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §
20.204(b) (2007). Once the veteran withdrew these issues,
there remained no allegations of error of fact or law for
appellate consideration. The Board does not have
jurisdiction to review these issues on appeal and they are
dismissed. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(d)(5) (West 2002 & Supp.
2008).
ORDER
The claim of service connection for hyperlipidemia is
dismissed.
The claim of service connection for bilateral hearing loss is
dismissed.
The claim of service connection for athlete's foot is
dismissed.
The claim of service connection for sinusitis is dismissed.
The claim of service connection for a right upper thigh
contusion is dismissed.
The claim of service connection for an anal fissure is
dismissed.
REMAND
The veteran contends that he is entitled to service
connection for pain and numbness of the right hand and pain
and numbness of the left hand. However, there is currently
insufficient evidence of record for the Board to proceed with
appellate review.
The veteran's service medical records indicate that in
September 1982, the veteran injured the second digit of his
left hand while working on an aircraft elevator. The
examiner noted that there were no fractures, and circulation,
reflexes, and sensations were intact. There is no further
mention of a left hand injury during the veteran's service
until August 1994, when the veteran reported having pain near
the first carpal-metacarpal region. The cause of the pain
was unknown, but there was no further mention of left hand
pain during the veteran's service.
The service medical records also indicate that in April 1992,
the veteran injured his right hand when he struck it on a
fence while riding a bicycle. According to the report, the
veteran sustained a "boxer" fracture of the first
metacarpal. In May 1992, the veteran's right hand was noted
to be healed but still tender. Therefore, the veteran's
service medical records indicate that the veteran injured
both his right and left hands during his active military
service.
VA also received private medical reports in May 2006 from the
veteran. These reports are signed by a Dr. P.S. According
to Dr. P.S., the veteran's right and left hands were
abnormal. Dr. P.S. concluded that the veteran suffered from
severe median neuropathy of the right wrist and mild medial
neuropathy of the left wrist. This is in contrast to an
August 2004 VA examination, where there were no clinical or
etiological findings to report regarding either the veteran's
left hand or his right hand. The examiner conducted an
examination of both hands, and found no abnormalities. As
such, there is currently conflicting medical evidence of
record.
Based on the above, the Board finds that appellate review
cannot proceed at this time. The evidence establishes that
the veteran injured both his right and left hands while on
active duty. Further, while the veteran's VA examination
found no current disability, this examination was in August
2004, and more recent private medical records from May 2006
suggest that the veteran has a current disorder of the hands.
No etiological opinion has been provided. Therefore, the
appeal must be remanded for an additional VA examination, to
determine whether the veteran currently has disorders of the
right and left hands, and if so, whether these disorders are
etiologically related to the veteran's active military
service.
Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:
1. The AMC should obtain any current VA
records or any relevant non-VA treatment
records identified by the veteran.
2. The veteran should be afforded a VA
examination of both hands. The claims
folder must be made available to the
examiner in conjunction with the
examination. X-ray imagery and any
additional testing deemed necessary should
be performed.
The examiner should determine whether the
veteran currently suffers from a disorder
of the right hand and/or left hand. If
so, the examiner should opine as to
whether it is at least as likely as not
that any disorder of the hands found upon
VA examination is a result of the
veteran's active military service,
specifically the injuries noted in the
service medical records.
3. After completion of the above, the
claim should be reviewed in light of any
new evidence. If the claim is not
granted, the veteran and his
representative should be furnished an
appropriate supplemental statement of the
case (SSOC) and be afforded an opportunity
to respond. Thereafter, the case should
be returned to the Board for appellate
review.
The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and
argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded.
Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law
requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of
Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims for additional development or other
appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.
See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2008).
______________________________________________
MICHAEL MARTIN
Acting Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the
nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a
decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal.
38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2007).
Department of Veterans Affairs